This can lead to a tendency to view cultural constructs as timeless and fixed, instead of as dynamical systems (Schmittmann et al., 2013).
Considering culture dynamically implies that cognitive scientists will often need to consider returning to the field periodically in order to update their cultural databases regularly.
First, studies conducted in indigenous societies can benefit by relying on multidisciplinary research groups to diminish ethnocentrism and enhance the quality of the data.
Second, studies devised for Western societies can readily be adapted to the changing settings encountered in the field.
Knowledge is conceived not as a fixed, timeless corpus of accumulated facts, but as relational, extensive and dynamic, and as such it is always provisional and amenable to updating, re-tests and replications.
Nowadays, psychologists produce the majority of the publications, are overrepresented in cognitive science’s conferences, and psychological findings are especially compelling to the media and funding agencies (Gentner, 2010).
Psychology’s dominant status within cognitive science has also set the research agenda in the search for shared mechanisms that produce behavior and general laws that predict and govern it.
Our own field, that of emotion and facial expression, is a sprawling area rich in controversies.
All in all, the predominance of experimental psychologists searching for general laws, the tradition of conceptualizing emotions as natural entities with casual properties, the use of canonical operationalizations (e.g., theory-driven facial expression matching-to-sample studies), and the generation of emotion theories based on US American samples as the normative population, have left no room for multidisciplinary collaborations with anthropologists (Russell, 1991; Wierzbicka, 2014; Plamper, 2015).